Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES (FINAL) WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 2017 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Steven Rowland, Chairman; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman; Chris Bennett; Richard Martin; Leslie Mechem ABSENT: Cynthia Corbett; Leslie DiCarlo STAFF: Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development, City of Saratoga Springs CALL TO ORDER: Steven Rowland, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:06 P.M. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated the proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. A. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: Steven Rowland, Chairman stated the intent of a consent agenda is to identify any application that appears to be “approvable” without need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wishes to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, then that item would be pulled from the “consent agenda” and dealt with individually. 1. 2017.079 WONDERLAND GROOMING WALL SIGN, 60 Weibel Avenue, Architectural Review of a wall sign within the Transect-4 Urban Neighborhood District. 2. 2017.075 PLAZA 15 SELF STORAGE EXPANSION, Gick Road, Architectural Review of a self storage facility expansion within the Transect-4 Urban Neighborhood District. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any questions or comments from the Commission. None heard. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on any consent agenda items. None heard. Steven Rowland, Chairman made a motion for Agenda Items 1 & 2 that each application be approved as submitted. T. Ehinger, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Leslie Mechem, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 B. DRC APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. 2017.080 MADADDIE AWNING, 62 Church Street, Architectural Review of awning and vinyl graphics within the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District. Agent: Rick Bolt, Fast Signs Mr. Bolt stated the applicant is proposing a vinyl decal 18 inches in height to be placed on the current awning which is blank. The decal will be placed on the slope of the awning. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Leslie Mechem made a motion in the matter of the Madaddie Awning, 62 Church Street that the application be approved as submitted. Richard Martin seconded the motion. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Leslie Mechem, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 2. 2016.051.3 THE ADELPHI CANOPY SIGN, 365 Broadway, Historic Review of an entrance sign within the Transect -6 Urban Core District. Agent: Dan Roicki, Adirondack Sign Company Mr. Roicki stated the applicant is proposing an internally lit sign for the Adelphi Hotel. The sign is approximately 1¼ inch thick extruded aluminum pan face with acrylic aluminum lettering internally lit with LEDs. This will be bolted with fasteners to the original canopy which was refurbished and reinstalled. Inside that will be 13 ½ inch tall black sign cavity. All lettering is lit, very similar to what was there in the 50’s. Discussion ensued concerning the lighting on the canopy and the size of the canopy. Mr. Roicki stated it is 10 feet in depth. Bradley Birge, Administrator of Planning and Economic Development stated the applicant is working with the City for an easement for the awning. This original awning predates zoning. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman made a motion in the matter of the Adelphi Hotel Entrance Canopy, 365 Broadway, that the application be approved as submitted. Leslie Mechem seconded the motion. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Leslie Mechem, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 3. 2017. 076 72 CLINTON STREET DEMOLITION, 72 Clinton Street, Historic Review of the proposed Demolition of an existing structure within the Urban Residential-3 District. Agent: Matt Hurff, Frost Hurff Architects City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – July 19, 2017 - Page 2 of 11 Steven Rowland, Chairman stated since this property is located in a Historic District the Commission will need to complete SEQRA for this application. Mr. Hurff provided a visual presentation of the proposed project. Mr. Hurff provided a current view of the proposed demolition. There is no historical resource left. It would need a great deal of structural reinvestment if you were to continue on with the home. Our applicants are looking to remove this structure and replace it with something which would be more beneficial to the neighborhood. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated most of the Commission members agreed that it might have had some historic significance some time ago, but that is all gone now. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Commission. None heard. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated for clarification, procedurally, anytime there is a proposal for demolition before the Commission whether it is in a Historic District or after recent changes even in the Architectural District you have a variety of decision paths that the Commission must decide. Is there architectural or historical significance to the structure. If you determine based upon information and documentation that there is no architectural or historic significance, then you need not go any further. You may simply at that point make a determination and allow for the demolition if you wish. If you determine that there is architectural or historical significance then there is a whole series of additional steps that the applicant must do to prove a higher threshold of why the building must come down. Dollars and cents as to what the costs of demolition would be, the cost of saving it versus demolition. Alternatives to demolition including can it be moved, can it be used for other activities and those type of items. A public hearing is required at that point as well as a post demolition plan. All of that information and procedure is not necessary if there is no architectural or historical significance. That is why it is important to state this on the record. The building is listed on the national register as a contributing property but these districts were created back in the mid 80’s. You may determine that if it did have contributing features it may no longer. If you move in that direction, before you make the actual determination you must go through a SEQRA Environmental Analysis. Demolition is generally an unlisted action. However because this is listed as a contributing property within the Historical District it converts to a SEQRA Type I action which requires the use of a SEQRA Long Form. If you determine that there is a potentially large environmental impact based upon your review, then the Commission will need to move onto Part III of the SEQRA form to determine how that may or may not be mitigated. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman questioned if there was any input from the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated we have nothing from the Preservation Foundation. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated based upon the information provided three is no architectural or historical significance either on the exterior or the interior of this structure. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated the Commission will now review SEQRA. The SEQRA Part I form is complete and submitted by the applicant. The Commission proceeded with the SEQRA Part II long form review. Moving to Part III we had no significant impacts in our review of Part II. So, upon review of the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQRA full Environmental Assessment Form, and our review and analysis of the information in Part II of the SEQRA Full Environmental Assessment Form, noting no significant impacts. It is the conclusion of the Design Review Commission as Lead Agency that this project will not result in any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, a Full Environmental Impact Statement need not be performed. Based on this, I move to issue a SEQRA Negative Declaration of environmental significance for this action. Leslie Mechem seconded the motion. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – July 19, 2017 - Page 3 of 11 Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Leslie Mechem, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 Steven Rowland, Chairman made a motion in the matter of the 72 Clinton Street Demolition, 72 Clinton Street, for Historic Review of demolition of an existing structure in the UR-3 District, the DRC classifies this as a SEQRA Type I action. Our assessment and determination we have reviewed of the SEQRA Part I assessment and determined it to be complete. We have reviewed the SEQRA Part II Long EAF and determined that was accurate. Therefore we have issued a SEQRA Negative Declaration of environmental significance based upon the analysis and information provided and presented in the environmental assessment form demonstrates that the project will not result in any large and important impact, and, therefore, is one that will not have a significant impact on the environment. In accordance with the standards and guidelines contained in the City Zoning Ordinance, I move that we approve the application as submitted indicating also that the DRC feels there is no architectural or historical significance remaining in the building. Chris Bennett seconded the motion. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Leslie Mechem, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 4. 2017.040 GROSSMAN RESIDENCE WINDOW REPLACEMENTS, 169 Union Avenue, Historic Review of window replacements within the Urban Residential-4 District. Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated we were here before discussing the replacement of the windows. Mr. Grossman is renovating the entire home. We have received approval for a porch addition on the rear of the home. At our last appearance before the Commission we stated would bring additional information to help with the review of what we are proposing. I have provided additional information to the Commission which I will review. We submitted revisions to the windows on the 3rd floor. These windows are in the gables and are actually in swing windows. Photos submitted. What we are suggesting instead of the double hung which would not fit with the character of the home we are proposing a casement type window for this area. It will swing out but have the same grill pattern as the existing window. Also, some additional information was provided concerning other homes and buildings which exist elsewhere in the city which are a Marvin Tilt Pack Windows. We have provided information and photos of projects in the City which were completed including City Hall which have been approved using these same windows. Examples of proposed windows were also provided to provide the Commission visually with how similar the homes are. Ms. Yasenchak stated the windows at 169 Union Avenue, how are these windows unique and how do they define the character of the home versus what we are proposing with a wood tilt pack window, that solely changes the sash. I have provided in your packet a very detailed sketch of what these windows as well as what the proposed windows are. We have measured every aspect of the windows including the putty which exists on the current windows. The windows we are proposing, Marvin Tilt Pack Windows have a putty reveal enabling you to have a similar architecture or view of the new window that you would have for the old window. I have noted similar windows of the same size and what the differences would be. On the putty for example there is an 1/8th of an inch difference in the putty reveal, in the top rail there a ½ inch difference and on the side rails there is less than 1/16th of an inch difference, 5/16th on the meeting rail, 3/16ths, on the side rail and ½ inch on the bottom rail. Again we are looking at the significance of the City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – July 19, 2017 - Page 4 of 11 character that defines this as a historical house. The sizes of the windows will be the same minus less than ½ of an inch difference. I do not think you will see this from the road. We submitted this because again we can say that our request is not changing the character or historical significance of the house. There also has been some discussion concerning energy. That is one of the reasons my client is looking to change the windows. One of the things with a storm window is you are stuck in the room. You need special knowledge on how to get out of the room in case of an emergency for egress. These windows don’t really make the house. The other features of the home make the house such as removing the aluminum siding, refurbishing the porch. Those are things which will make this house come to life, not necessarily the windows. We did receive some correspondence from the Saratoga Preservation Foundation. Some of the things that were sent had to do with the energy analysis of this and the fact that there are other ways to make this house more energy efficient. I did provide the Commission with calculations using all those different options to show you how none of those options actually work for this particular house. Every house is different and looked at individually. I did a calculation ratio of windows to walls. Option #A - Just storm windows added would be 108% worse than code. Option #B – Adding storm windows and more insulation in the ceiling, again suggested by the DRC and the Preservation Foundation. That was still 98% worse than code. Option #C. Adding storm windows, additional insulation to the ceiling and insulation in the walls. Suggested by the DRC and the Preservation Foundation. This was still 90% worse than code. The U-value of an existing window with a storm is 1. Right now a new window we are looking at a U-value of .3. There is a significant difference. I again looked at replacing the windows and insulating the cavities. We are still 36% less than code but that did not include additional insulation in the walls and ceilings. That is our report on this specific home. Another issue is whether these windows have to be energy efficient. The Saratoga Preservation Foundation stated if a house is listed on the National Historic Register, that it is exempt from energy compliance. This is in a Historic District but the house itself is a contributing structure. Ms. Yasenchak reviewed the 2012 code and the 2015 code. With the documentation we have provided and with the windows proposed, is that change threatening, changing or degrading the historic form or function of the building. I do not feel that with the documentation presented showing the minute difference in the windows we are proposing that that change is not threatening, changing or degrading the historic form or function of the building. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Commission. None heard. Chris Bennett stated if we follow our guidelines and standards that is what we are supposed to do. When it comes to the code the City is not requiring the applicant to do that. If we stay consistent than I need to vote the same way until my guidelines change. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman stated you make a very compelling argument for your client. When you buy an old home you must expect it not to be energy efficient. It will never be fully efficient like new construction. Discussion ensued among the Commission concerning original windows versus replacement. Richard Martin stated I look at things differently than some of the other Commission members. I don’t believe replacement of these windows changes the architecture of the home. Saving energy is important to me. I have eliminated the storm windows, have easy egress out in the event of an emergency and eliminated the lead in the home. There are considerations and by making the window as close as to what currently exists with the added benefit of energy savings is important. Discussion ensued among the Commission concerning the guidelines and standards of the Design Review Commission. Ms. Yasenchak spoke about the historic guidelines noting to preserve rather than replace. Ms. Yasenchak reviewed these guidelines with the Commission. What makes these windows different and distinct for this particular site and this particular house. The windows on this home do not make this home unique. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman questioned the number of windows proposed to be replaced and would like to look at each one which is being replaced. Ms. Yasenchak reviewed the windows to be replaced location and current condition. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – July 19, 2017 - Page 5 of 11 Steven Rowland, Chairman stated in the past I have been agreeable to a replacement window of high quality wood. Obviously these windows are of that caliber. Steven Rowland, Chairman noted to Ms. Yasenchak that there were only 5 members of the Commission this evening. Would the applicant prefer to table the application for two weeks when Commission attendance should be more complete hopefully. Leslie Mechem stated she is torn. The second floor windows are not particularly interesting. Discussion continued among the Commission concerning the muntin pattern of the original windows. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated he would agree with the Chris that the replaced windows should mimic the pattern of the original window and not the storm window. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman questioned if the applicant would be willing to remove the storms and restore some architectural integrity to the home. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Ms. Yasenchak stated she would like to discuss this with her client. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated we will defer this application to the end of the meeting to provide Ms. Yasenchak an opportunity to review with her client their preference to tabling the application for two weeks or to proceed this evening with a decision with five Commission members present. 5. 2017.078 T-MOBILE NORTHEAST CELLULAR, 71 West Avenue, Architectural Review of replacement and additional cellular communications equipment within the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District. Agent: Mike Gentile, T Mobile Representative Mr. Gentile stated the applicant is looking to replace and modify the equipment presently located at 71 West Avenue. Essentially, we are looking to replace and upgrade the antennas which are there to the LTE models. Band width needs to be increased and service might be lacking specifically for T-Mobile. Radios on the ground are being installed within the ground enclosure. Very minor intrusiveness in terms of aesthetics. Where we are proposing to mount the equipment will be virtually invisible. It will be mounted behind the existing cabinets on the ground within the compound. The only other alternative is within the ice bridge a few feet above that or on the vertical posts that hold the ice bridge up. A visual rendering of the proposed project was provided for the Commission’s review. That is the extent of the modification. This is a typical bi-annual review of the equipment. We do not want to place additional equipment on the tower. These are small enough to mount on the ground to the H-frame and be virtually invisible. There purpose is to increase band width. We will be removing three antennas off the tower and replacing them with three antennas. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated procedurally we will need to review the SEQRA Part II Short Form. Part I of the SEQRA Short Form was submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the Commission and accepted as complete. The Commission reviewed SEQRA Part II Short Form. No large or significant impacts were noted. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated the DRC has determined based upon review and analysis provided in the supporting documentation that the any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one that will not have a significant adverse environmental impacts. Based on this I move to issue a SEQRA Negative Declaration of environmental significance for this action. Chris Bennett seconded the motion. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – July 19, 2017 - Page 6 of 11  Richard Martin, in favor; Leslie Mechem, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 Steven Rowland, Chairman stated we visited this very same location for various changes over the years. I would like to re- emphasize to the owner that we would like to see the equipment on the ground be screened somewhat. It is a very busy location. There is nothing around it. Discussion ensued concerning the screening of the mechanicals in this area. Richard Martin made a motion in the matter of the T-Mobile Northeast Cellular, 71 West Avenue that the application be approved with the following conditions – that a structural or living evergreen barrier be created to shroud the ground mechanicals from West Avenue to Blue Streak Boulevard and that final review to be approved by the full Commission. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Leslie Mechem, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 2017.061 HENRY ST. CONDOS, 128 Henry Street, Advisory Opinion (Architectural Review) to the Planning Board on a proposed residential condominium building within the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District. Applicant: Bob Boucher, Owner, Architect Mr. Boucher stated since the initial presentation he has made some changes in the massing and scale of the project. Photographs of the project with changes were provided to the Commission. Mr. Boucher provided a review of some of the changes, incorporating some of the neighbors concerns. He has reduced the foot print and redesigned the building. We have brought it in 5 feet from the McTygue property on the left. This was brought in at its deepest point 5 feet from Bank Alley. There is an additional 7 feet in two directions which were cut out at the narrowest part of Bank Alley which also incorporated a reduction in the building. In addition the entire two thirds of the upper floor have been reduced. The green roof now has been relocated and reduced on the rear portion of the building. The back of the building has been reduced where we now have an entire green belt that will be visible from Bank Alley. It will only be 27 feet now at the high part of Bank Alley. In addition, at the corner of the building nearest Bank Alley, those units have been redesigned to eliminate some windows and further turn the fenestration inward. The corner units do have open balconies on three sides with that detail eliminated along Bank Alley. The streetscape of the gallery space was provided. We have now incorporated some sitting benches at the recommendation of the Planning Board. We now have a tree belt and some traditional lighting fixtures in the front. Our idea of having this very active pedestrian dynamic with the currated gallery is still a very nice feature for the streetscape. It completely masks the parking level which is behind it. The windows are 18 inches deep and acclimatized. They have a three dimensional quality and again will be professionally curated. We have an agreement with the Marketplace Galley to do so. Sketches show the side elevations and the rear elevation along Bank Alley how the penthouse elimination on the upper right units brings the roof parapet level with the green roof down almost 8 feet on that level. We have tried very hard to provide considerations for the people who live on Circular Street. There is also an updated Section through the site showing the elevation on Circular Street cascading down at a fixed point on Bank Alley. This section is cut at the lower down slope of that. Plantscaping is proposed along Bank Alley. We have reduced the overall footprint and the setbacks and the garage level and part of the second floor is embedded into Bank Alley as well. I will have a lighting consultant work with me. The plinth blocks some will alternate having side emitting very soft lighting. None will project forward and will exceed a dark sky compliance condition. The gallery will be lit with museum quality City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – July 19, 2017 - Page 7 of 11 conditions which will be at the appropriate light level for streetscape. The covered loggias in the columns and the pilasters will have lighting recessed within them. None of the lighting will be on the ceiling level. Also we are providing in each unit not only for design uniformity automated window treatments which will automatically lower the shades at night, with an 80% opacity on Bank Alley. When those treatments lower they will gently filter the light. There will be a lesser opacity of 70% on the front giving a gentle glow on the streetscape. The green roof will have a total circulation system in it. Mechanicals are all inbound and will not be visible from Bank Alley. Discussion ensued among the Commission concerning mechanical equipment placement and the type of plant materials proposed for the green roof as well as trash removal and the location of the meter banks. Steven Rowland, Chairman, stated many of these items will be reviewed by the Commission as the application moves forward. The main goal tonight is to provide the Planning Board with an Advisory Opinion. They have listed the five specific items: Mass and Scale – guidance particularly neighborhood compatibility, transition from downtown to the existing neighborhood, change in grade and surroundings taken into account. Proximity to the National Historical District. Thoughts on appropriate transition. Lighting, visual impact assessed taking into consideration the building height, design, proximity of structure to existing residences. Streetscape to propose civic space and streetscape details, including the 1st floor frontage as an art gallery, proposed project civic space. Consideration for details which should be provided. Garage is proposed on the front of the building, versus strong discouragement from the Zoning Ordinance, and if its present that it is not recessed as encouraged by the Zoning Ordinance. Noted proposal is for a cedar appearance door. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated the bigger issues are the Mass and Scale guidance and the Historic District proximity and lighting. I feel that the proposed civic space and streetscape details we can work through the details on how those potential art gallery details work and appear. Those things to me seem to be much more of a stronger suit to the Planning Board than us. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated this is where you have a blend between the Planning Board and the Design Review Commission particularly in the Transect zones. Because you are looking at the form of the buildings and well as the function and how they operate. So, the question is generally speaking the Zoning Ordinance wants to encourage civic space on the first floor, have a strong dynamic aspect happening. So that we do not have blank walls, and it does not impede people from walking from one area to another. It encourages the dynamic streetscape. Normally those types of uses are under the Planning Boards purview generally but they are interested in your concepts of how you feel this addresses those objectives. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, stated the art gallery concept is awesome. I think it is amazing and unique to the City. It would definitely encourage pedestrian traffic. In terms of visual stimulation I think this aspect of the building is one of its finest features. The first floor frontage is pretty amazing. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated the applicant is working with a lighting consultant. The Planning Board has requested a photometric analysis. The Chairman explained to the Commission how and what the photometric plan consists of. This is probably the most important aspect from the neighbor’s point of view. That is an important impact for us to consider as well. The proximity to the Historic District is a natural one since the topography of the area separates them in a natural way. What is happening adjacent to this site continues to be pretty contemporary. I think this building is stepping down somewhat as you head east. You have made some efforts to further reduce the building height to help mitigate that even more. That will continue to be a concern to us and the Planning Board. Discussion ensued among the Commission concerning the entrance and egress on the site. Mr. Boucher spoke about the revision of the stair tower. It will be a design element with some channeled frosted glazing. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – July 19, 2017 - Page 8 of 11 The stair tower will illuminate on the ends with 18 inch vertical glazed elements. It will have a little bit of a tower feel but very subtle as a design element to break up the asymmetry now that occurs from the front and the rear portion. This will be visible from the Four Seasons Market side. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further questions or comments from the Commission. Chris Bennett stated he is anxious to see samples of the proposed products to be used in this application. That will be a big consideration for the Commission. Also, since the building has a considerable amount of glass how would you deal with the birds? Mr. Boucher stated the glazing is critical. It is the specific tint which will reduce the glare. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Ann Diggory, 1 Circular Street. My comments and concerns are is there was any consideration for details to be provided regarding the gallery windows. As an artist I am curious. Lighting is also a question especially at night, and at the rear of the building. Signage is also questioned. Suggested a pull over in front of the building and is concerned regarding additional traffic. Louis Santamar, 163 Circular Street. I would like to see modifications. My home has a carriage house right across from Bank Alley. These are not on the website at this time. Sound amplification is a concern. Light pollution is also a concern. I have no issue with the building. Would like to see more information. Leo Geoffrion, 38 High Rock. This is the right building in the wrong place. It is a large building on a small lot. Totally squeezed. It is a very large building in a small spot. Very narrow street to have this work long term. Joe Stanek, 38 High Rock. We have sent a letter to the Planning Board concerning the façade and the transition into the Historic District. There is no parking on Henry Street. A lot of condo owners now have multiple cars. I did see the letter from the Saratoga Preservation Foundation and they were pretty strong in their comments. We are not opposed to the building but we are concerning about the façade. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated the Commission is in receipt of correspondence from the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation. They specifically mentioned based on the Transect zone a few requirements that in their opinion the building does not meet. Most of them are guidelines for the City’s Transect zone. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated their first comment was the exit from the building’s first story parking garage is through an overhead garage door on the façade of the structure. Section 3.1.2.C.6 requires that if necessary such a garage door should be locate at least 20 feet behind the plane of the principal building façade. Section 3.1.2.F Architectural Design – Facades provides that facades should use materials complimenting neighboring buildings and should include base, middle and top levels. The neighboring buildings are predominantly brick. The proposed façade appears to be comprised of floor to ceiling glass. In addition, the base, middle and top levels of the proposed structure are not clearly delineated nor is the main entrance to the building. The proposed glass façade may not be compatible with the brick structures immediately adjacent to the proposed site and, although down the hill, and historic properties on Circular Street. The use of a glass curtain wall precludes the use of a sill and lintels as required by Section 3.1.2.G. They also express concern regarding the ground floor façade and the difficulties and challenges in maintaining the ground floor façade use as an art gallery and difficulties in organizing and maintaining that. Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development stated not to diminish the seriousness or the impact of the guidelines. When one writes a Zoning Ordinance you have to try to identify the objectives you are trying to achieve and envision all of the possibilities that can occur. Transect zones are very important and have specific objectives. One of which is to be a mixed use area, so that you can balance your activities and your parking needs for daytime as well as nighttime and the impact on traffic in general, access and circulation. They are intended to create a dynamic streetscape to make people want to walk. To provide the opportunity for people to walk to create that exciting, dynamic activity so people partake of all of those streetscape elements. What we are trying to avoid in those areas are blank walls, blank areas, City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – July 19, 2017 - Page 9 of 11 traditional parking structures that create dead space. Where it feels unsafe or unfavorable to walk through thereby creating physical barriers to actually having more connectivity. In that sense you and the Planning Board have to decide if what is being presented promotes those avenues either in intent or the letter of that. It is not cut and dry. It is the guidelines you must look through and determine if it is consistent with the overall objectives and does it achieve those objectives. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the types of materials in use in this area. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated I don’t think it is inappropriate to have the modern interpretation of what we have here. The applicant has taken some steps to help mitigate some of the mass and scale impacts of this. It does appear from the representations we have received tonight that it does have a step down quality from the larger buildings to the west as it heads east. That is heading in the right direction. The five items the Planning Board has requested opinions on, Mass and Scale, proximity to the National Historical District, the lighting, the streetscape and the garages impact to the street. We have spoken about the concern with the civic space and the gallery and that there is not a lot of pedestrian interaction there. We are talking about a gallery where we can view artwork but there is also the planking barrier in front of this. There is a separation from the sidewalk to the gallery. This seems to be more of a Planning Board issue but I do feel some concern here. Anything that can be done to encourage pedestrian activity to Lake Avenue would be important. The mass and scale is being addressed and headed in the right direction. The proximity to the Historic District is helped by the geographical grade change in that area. Concerning the lighting. Looking more closely at the lighting will be critical to this building as we move forward. One of the thoughts I had concerning the garage is if efforts can be made to further de- emphasize the pedestrian entrance which would by its nature de-emphasize the garage. The rhythm of the façade helps mitigate the impact of the garage door. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Commission. Steven Rowland, Chairman suggested the Commission draft some language and perhaps share with the applicant and address it at the next meeting. There is a positive feel as to how the project is heading. It is a positive project. I am hearing from the Commission that the Advisory Opinion will be a positive one. Mr. Boucher stated he was hoping for having the project move forward tonight so that he can return before Planning. Discussion ensued among the Commission concerning crafting the Advisory Opinion. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated you have a couple of options. I can review what I heard you say trying to craft a motion this evening. If you wish to have more time, you can certainly do that. In that sense you would bring it back to a full Commission and formally adopt an Advisory Opinion. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked Bradley Birge to review the issues he has noted from the discussion. Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development stated the following: -Mass and Scale – the applicant has reduced the Mass and Scale impact by reducing the height and stepping back the rear portion of the building. The mass and scale is heading in the right direction and is appropriate to its location. -Proximity to the National Historic District – the Commission has identified the natural transition. The topography in the area is beneficial from the Historic District on Circular Street to the newer areas of development. -Architecturally speaking the more recent architecture in this area has been more contemporary in nature and that this is not in direct contradiction to that. This project based upon what was presented has a reduced mass than most recent construction. The transition is assisted by the reduction in height on the eastern façade and specifically the quality of materials will be critical to the long term success of this architectural feature. - Lighting plans are very important and considering its impact to the neighboring properties the DRC would like to see and review the photometric plan. -Streetscape should be visually stimulating. One of the finer features of the application is of critical important and to create a dynamic streetscape. Questioning the civic space and gallery space and the longevity of the agreement. Increase pedestrian activity. -Garage – applicant continues to emphasize the pedestrian entrance as the main focal point of the building. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – July 19, 2017 - Page 10 of 11 Steven Rowland, Chairman made a motion in the matter of the Henry Street Condos – Advisory Opinion to the Planning Board, 128 Henry Street that the DRC issue a Favorable Advisory Opinion with the following conditions: 1. Mass and Scale – Reduction heading in the right direction. 2. Historic District – Topography transition, height reduction helps, in context more in keeping with newer buildings in the area. 3. Lighting – Photometrics important. Light source visibility is key. 4. Civic space/Streetscape – Logistic of gallery long term and pedestrian access to gallery. 5. Garage – de-emphasize garage; emphasize pedestrian entry. Leslie Mechem seconded the motion. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Leslie Mechem, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 2017.040 GROSSMAN RESIDENCE WINDOW REPLACEMENTS, 169 Union Avenue, Historic Review of window replacements within the Urban Residential-4 District. Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated she has spoken with her client and they would like to table the application until the next meeting scheduled for August 2, 2017. Ms. Yasenchak reviewed the information provided to the Commission concerning the cost of window replacement versus restoration. Application tabled until August 2, 2017 meeting. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Deferred to the August 2, 2017 meeting. UPCOMING WORKSHOPS/MEETINGS: Design Review Caravan, Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 5:00 P.M. Design Review Meeting, Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. COMMENTS FROM STAFF: Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated the Planning Board has requested a Joint Board Meeting to discuss the South Broadway project. At this time either August 10th or August 17, 2017 at 6:00 P.M., is suggested. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development will confirm the date and time. It was the consensus of the Commission that the August 10, 2017 date is preferred. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Steven Rowland, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 9/6/17 City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – July 19, 2017 - Page 11 of 11